Dwights, you are correct; my simple answer is a yes...

Dwights, as I mentioned earlier the “original” church was Jewish and they naturally would have spoken Hebrew, Aramaic, and many of them being in a Hellenistic culture spoke Greek. I do agree that a portion of the church eventually adopted Latin as their official language but this was not universal. Nevertheless, you asked, “Who were the original “studiers” of the bible, both OT and N...more

Dwights, as I mentioned earlier the “original” church was Jewish and they naturally would have spoken Hebrew, Aramaic, and many of them being in a Hellenistic culture spoke Greek. I do agree that a portion of the church eventually adopted Latin as their official language but this was not universal.

Nevertheless, you asked, “Who were the original “studiers” of the bible, both OT and NT?”…They were naturally studied by the first believers and the New Testament clearly testifies that the first believers were Jewish…

You also asked, “Are you an authentic interpreter of Scripture?” This question is a straw man in the making. By using the word “authentic” you are proposing that some do not “genuinely” have the right to study and interpret the Scriptures; your assumption is false:

The New Testament clearly teaches that true believers are part of the “royal priesthood” [1 Peter 2:9] and as such we have been told to “study” [2 Timothy 2:15], that we have the “anointing” and do not need “any man [to] teach you” [1 John 2:27], that “he [the Holy Spirit] shall teach you all things” [John 14:26], to “take heed…unto the doctrine” [1 Timothy 4:16], to “try [test] the spirits whether they are of God” [1 John 4:1], to “search the Scriptures” [John 5:39”, to “reprove” [Ephesians 5:11], and we have “searched the scriptures daily, whether those [these] things were [are] so” [Acts 17:11]…So, with this evidence before us, what is your point?less

Dwights, I too share this in a friendly spirit; I have verified these things from the Scriptures. The NT Church’s original language was not Latin but Hebrew/Aramaic; Latin was the language of the Romans. By the way the Scriptures do not say that Peter moved a ‘headquarters’ from Antioch to Rome…Please read the 11th chapter of the book of Acts; it clearly states that due to the stoning of S...more

Dwights, I too share this in a friendly spirit; I have verified these things from the Scriptures. The NT Church’s original language was not Latin but Hebrew/Aramaic; Latin was the language of the Romans. By the way the Scriptures do not say that Peter moved a ‘headquarters’ from Antioch to Rome…Please read the 11th chapter of the book of Acts; it clearly states that due to the stoning of Stephen believers were persecuted and “traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyrus, and Antioch” [verses 19], again some of them went to “Cyprus and Cyrene” and spoke to the Grecians in Antioch [verse 20], once the Church in Jerusalem heard this they sent Barnabas to Antioch [verse 22], and they remained there for a year [verse 26]. Verse 27 says, “And in these days came the prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.”

My point is, the original church was Jewish and as they suffered persecution they scattered and began preaching the gospel to the gentiles… In fact the New Testament was written in the common language of the day, Koine Greek; not Latin.

Yes, I have repeatedly heard the claim that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Christ but the biblical evidence to support this is once again lacking. If one would simply study the sacred texts of the New Testament they would find a totally difference portrait other than the one you are painting…less

“But it was when they each received their own small Bible that the change in the men became even more profound. The Bible study and preaching of the word began to change lives as it always does,” said Henriquez. Amen; “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts” [Jeremiah 15:1...more

“But it was when they each received their own small Bible that the change in the men became even more profound. The Bible study and preaching of the word began to change lives as it always does,” said Henriquez.


Amen; “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts” [Jeremiah 15:16].less

Goodone, as I mentioned earlier the information is readily available; if you did a little more research you will be able to confirm what was posted.

Hi Dwights, I disagree; once Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire it eventually became the state religion and this is when many believe that the church became corrupted by pomp, pride, and compromise. My point is the bishop of Rome adopted the title ‘pontifex maximus’ from the Roman Caesars, adopted Latin as its official language, Justinian declared the bishop of Rome head of all Ch...more

Hi Dwights, I disagree; once Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire it eventually became the state religion and this is when many believe that the church became corrupted by pomp, pride, and compromise. My point is the bishop of Rome adopted the title ‘pontifex maximus’ from the Roman Caesars, adopted Latin as its official language, Justinian declared the bishop of Rome head of all Churches in 533, Rome remains the headquarters of the papacy, the popes replaced the Caesars after the fall of Rome, and the call today is to come home to Rome…I’d have to say if the shoe fits wear it… ;)less

Chas, this is exactly what you are doing; you are attacking the Church Catholic [Universal] by insisting that a particular branch, congregation, or denomination is exclusively the bride of Christ…Q: How can the church of Rome be the bride of Christ when she lives in constant variance to His Holy Word?

Goodone, the information that I gave you is well known; you can easily read the same thing at Wikipedia; do some research...Also, it is not suggested as you propose; this is a case of reading your tradition into the text...

Goodone, what's your point; why are you bringing up the Unification Church? Again, the passages that you have referenced say absolutely nothing about indulgences...

Objectivity, yes, it is sad and most unfortunate to say the least. I do not understand how some can so easily repudiate the faith…

Goodone, so you are saying because they gave from their own volition it makes it right? That is nonsense; indulgences remain an unbiblical and scandalous practice. Unification Church; what do you mean?

Goodone, first of all, in Acts 1 Peter is actually quoting two Psalms; Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8 to speak of ‘his’ [Judas’ demise] thereby pointing to ‘his’ replacement. As we know Matthias replaced Judas so that the original number of disciples should be maintained. This chapter is not speaking of passing on apostolic authority to future generations but rather the replacement of ‘on...more

Goodone, first of all, in Acts 1 Peter is actually quoting two Psalms; Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8 to speak of ‘his’ [Judas’ demise] thereby pointing to ‘his’ replacement. As we know Matthias replaced Judas so that the original number of disciples should be maintained. This chapter is not speaking of passing on apostolic authority to future generations but rather the replacement of ‘one’ man’s apostleship; besides, the disciples were unique and nowhere in the New Testament do we find any of the twelve apostles passing their apostolic authority to any successors.

Secondly, 1 Timothy 4:14 says, “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by PROPHECY, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” Notice that is says that the gift was given by what? By ‘prophecy’ WITH the laying on of the hands…All that is taking place here is the custom of laying on of the hands to ordain men into the ministry; not apostolic succession…

Goodone, you may want to actually read those passages instead of cutting and pasting them from a particular site...None of those passages speak apostolic succession...less

Goodone, what; how am I abusing the system…Oh my goodness; are you going to start whining about how many times a person posts? Really! Please do a little more research of your history…Pope Leo X wrote a papal bull “granting indulgences to all who should contribute to building of the new church of St. Peter.” See A. E. McKilliam’s - A Chronicle of the Popes from St. Peter to Pius X (L...more

Goodone, what; how am I abusing the system…Oh my goodness; are you going to start whining about how many times a person posts? Really!

Please do a little more research of your history…Pope Leo X wrote a papal bull “granting indulgences to all who should contribute to building of the new church of St. Peter.”
See A. E. McKilliam’s - A Chronicle of the Popes from St. Peter to Pius X (London, G. Bell and Sons, LTD, 1912, p. 409).

Also, Archbishop Albert of Mains had taken out a loan from a German banking house, reportedly in order to provide a gift to the Pope that secured Albert's episcopal office. To pay back this sum, Archbishop Albert sold indulgences for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s; with half the collection going to Rome and half to pay back his debt." http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/St._Peter%27s_Basilica

Also see Leo the X’s Indulgence Decretal ‘Cum postquam’ [1518]…less

ihs, you have failed to mention one very important fact here; the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification misrepresents both Catholic and Protestant theology. Just because this document uses the words grace, justification, faith, etc. doesn’t mean anything; they may use these same words but we both know that each side has an entirely different understanding as to what these words mean...more

ihs, you have failed to mention one very important fact here; the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification misrepresents both Catholic and Protestant theology. Just because this document uses the words grace, justification, faith, etc. doesn’t mean anything; they may use these same words but we both know that each side has an entirely different understanding as to what these words mean. In fact, they both completely define these words differently…

I would encourage those of you who believe that the Scriptures alone contain all the knowledge that is necessary for our salvation to read this informative article:

A Betrayal of the Gospel: The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/03/a-betrayal-of-the-gospel-the-joint-declaration-on-the-doctrine-of-justification/less

Now, the priesthood; the New Testament does not mention any other priesthood other than the priesthood of all believers [See 1 Peter 2:9] which means there is no sacrificial priesthood. Besides, the Passover/Lord’s Supper was originally a communal meal that believers participated in; it was nothing like what you practice today. Review Luke 21:19 again and notice it says the breaking of bread not...more

Now, the priesthood; the New Testament does not mention any other priesthood other than the priesthood of all believers [See 1 Peter 2:9] which means there is no sacrificial priesthood. Besides, the Passover/Lord’s Supper was originally a communal meal that believers participated in; it was nothing like what you practice today. Review Luke 21:19 again and notice it says the breaking of bread not a transubstantiated wafer…

Also, the passages that you referenced regarding the laying on of the hands say nothing of apostolic succession; rather this custom was a way of ordaining men into the ministry. For example, 1 Timothy 4:14 says, “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by PROPHECY, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” Notice that is says that the gift was given by what? By ‘prophecy’ WITH the laying on of the hands; so, once more, there is nothing that says the apostles would pass on their authority or their office to future generations.less

Hello Derford, as believer mentioned earlier, “those of us who were raised in your denomination” know perfectly well that this is not the case. I attended a Catholic wedding last spring and during the service the priest held up the wafer and declared ‘Christ sacrificed’ while parishioners knelt in worship. This teaching that the mass is the ‘same sacrifice’ in an ‘unbloody manner’ ...more

Hello Derford, as believer mentioned earlier, “those of us who were raised in your denomination” know perfectly well that this is not the case. I attended a Catholic wedding last spring and during the service the priest held up the wafer and declared ‘Christ sacrificed’ while parishioners knelt in worship. This teaching that the mass is the ‘same sacrifice’ in an ‘unbloody manner’ is completely foreign to the testimony of the Holy Scriptures…

Speaking of Jesus Christ we read, “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for all” [Hebrews 10:10] and further the Scriptures declare “and without shedding of blood is no remission” [Hebrews 9:22]. In contrast to the explicit teachings of God’s Word the Catechism says, “The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, “sacrifice of praise,” spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.” [1330].

Seeing that God’s Word says that there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood the mass remains an unnecessary practice and is clearly incapable of remitting sins…Christ’s single offering of himself at Calvary’s cross was and remains all sufficient. So, this teaching that the mass is a “re-sacrifice of Christ” or a "re-offering” of Christ is absolutely unbiblical and a gross misrepresentation of the Lord’s Supper.less

Goodone, the Catholic Encyclopedia says, [Fifth paragraph] “This opinion found no recognition but actual condemnation at the hands of authoritative writers, and was rejected in explicit terms by Cardinal Cajetan as late as 1517-19. By the teaching he laid himself open to just censure and reproach.” [See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14539a.htm] What the Catholic Encyclopedia skims over i...more

Goodone, the Catholic Encyclopedia says, [Fifth paragraph] “This opinion found no recognition but actual condemnation at the hands of authoritative writers, and was rejected in explicit terms by Cardinal Cajetan as late as 1517-19. By the teaching he laid himself open to just censure and reproach.” [See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14539a.htm]

What the Catholic Encyclopedia skims over is the fact that the sale of indulgences was commissioned by Pope Leo X to finance the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica…My point has been that there is not a single scriptural example of an apostle or any other church leader issuing out an “indulgence” to a fellow believer…less

On the contrary Rome did ‘sell’ indulgences; John Tetzel, whose German name was Johann, was given the task of raising money for the building of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. His well known pitch was, “As soon as the gold in the casket rings; the rescued soul to heaven springs”…Secondly, the passages that you have shared thus far do not support purgatory or indulgences…

Dwights, as you know the word catholic means universal but it shouldn’t be confused with the name ‘Roman’ catholic. I believe it is disingenuous to claim the word catholic exclusively to the Church of Rome; how can the word catholic [universal] apply exclusively to Rome when ‘Roman’ means particular? This is a contradiction of terms… Another point to consider is this, at what point ...more

Dwights, as you know the word catholic means universal but it shouldn’t be confused with the name ‘Roman’ catholic. I believe it is disingenuous to claim the word catholic exclusively to the Church of Rome; how can the word catholic [universal] apply exclusively to Rome when ‘Roman’ means particular? This is a contradiction of terms…

Another point to consider is this, at what point did the Church become known universally; certainly not in its infancy? In fact, the word church as used in the New Testament means a local congregation of Christians, such as “the church of God at Corinth,” “the church in Jerusalem,” “the churches of Galatia,” and “the church in thy house.” As Christianity spread it eventually became the adopted faith of the Roman Empire; so we see that the universal faith became a gradual development…

Now, with the name ‘catholic’ off the table we still need to consider why the teachings of the Roman Church do not reflect the teachings and practices that were held by the New Testament Church…less

Yes, I read that earlier; however, I was curious to see if you thought you could give a more definite passage that supports indulgences…Matthew 12:36 says nothing of a place called purgatory nor does it speak of indulgences; Jesus is simply saying that man will be held accountable or responsible for the way in which he lived his life. No one can ‘pay’ for their past or future sins and certai...more

Yes, I read that earlier; however, I was curious to see if you thought you could give a more definite passage that supports indulgences…Matthew 12:36 says nothing of a place called purgatory nor does it speak of indulgences; Jesus is simply saying that man will be held accountable or responsible for the way in which he lived his life. No one can ‘pay’ for their past or future sins and certainly no one can ‘buy’ their salvation…I do not know how you came to that conclusion.less